Dan's New Blog

Today Google and Verizon provided some clarity wrt their views on net neutrality. Like I said earlier, it’s a quid pro quo. In exchange for net neutrality in the wired, non-mobile world:

“So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.”

Google advocates letting Verizon manage its network bandwidth any way it wants:

“In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement.”

I can live with this.

I’m trying to parse the Google-Verizon deal which, as Om Malik says, appears to be a knife in the back of net neutrality.  The NY Times started it all off by announcing that:

“Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege. The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.”

This raises several questions. If Google is so concerned about traffic to YouTube being throttled back, why haven’t they also cut a deal with Comcast? (You may remember that back in April the DC Circuit Court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission didn’t have the authority to tell Comcast how to manage its bandwidth.) And why is YouTube traffic an issue now? Is YouTube a red herring — is this all really about bandwidth for, say, Google Music?

Very confusing.

Both Google and Verizon said uh-uh.  Here’s Google’s Public Policy Twitter feed:

“@NYTimes is wrong. We’ve not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.”

And Verizon’s PolicyBlog:

“The NYT article  regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken.  It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.”

(If someone could read between the lines in all that and explain the nuances to me, it would be much appreciated.) Anyway, now the other shoe has dropped. The Washington Post reports that the FCC-hosted talks on a national broadband policy have collapsed:

“Under criticism for its handing of closed-door discussions with certain companies on broadband policy, the Federal Communications Commission announced Thursday the meetings with Verizon, AT&T, Google and Skype were unsuccessful and that it would stop holding them. The announcement comes amid an apparent agreement between Verizon and Google on so-called net neutrality ground rules that would allow certain prioritization of Web sites on fixed wire networks and no rules on wireless networks. Sources familiar with the discussions at the FCC said reports Wednesday of a deal between Verizon and Google on net neutrality upset participants in the meeting, who were moving closer to agreement on stronger rules against blocking and slowing traffic on wireless and fixed-wire networks.”

So what gives? Has Google abandoned “Don’t Be Evil”? Again, I’m confused. But this story from Bloomberg makes a lot more sense to me:

“Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. have struck their own accord on handling Internet traffic, as both participate in talks by U.S. officials on Web policy, two people briefed by the companies said. The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn’t apply such limits to Internet use on mobile phones, according to the people, who spoke yesterday and asked not to be identified before an announcement. Verizon and Google have been adversaries over the issue, known as net neutrality. Verizon was among cable and phone companies saying they need leeway on the delivery of Web content to protect performance of their networks. Google led content providers and advocacy groups that say restrictions are required so communications companies don’t favor their own online offerings or those of partners that pay for higher speeds.”

See the difference? Verizon isn’t extorting money from Google. (“Nice little YouTube ya got here. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it.”) It’s actually a quid-pro-quo — Google preserves net neutrality while Verizon gets a free hand with its wireless traffic, which is much more lucrative.

At least that’s what it seems to me. I’m not naive, nor am I a Google fanboy. But who knows?

TechCrunch tidily sums up today’s iPhone media event:

“Let’s recap: Jobs acknowledged the ["Antennagate"] problem, then offered evidence that people don’t really care because the phones are still selling like hot cakes. Not only that, but other phones have the exact same problem. And it only affects less than one percent of all iPhone 4s anyway. Still, we love our customers so much we are giving them all free cases. Any questions?”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that the San Mateo County D.A.’s office has withdrawn its warrant in the case of the lost/stolen/Lord-knows-what iPhone 4 prototype. Gizmodo’s Jason Chen will get his seized computer stuff back, but it could be subpoenaed at a later date.

Consumer Reports has decided that it cannot recommend the iPhone 4 because of its well-known signal woes. But CR Labs has come up with what they call an “affordable” fix:

“Cover the antenna gap with a piece of duct tape or another thick, non-conductive material. It may not be pretty, but it works.”

Am I gonna pay 300 bucks for an obelisk and then stick gray tape on it, which will get all grimy with lint from my pocket? Mais non. I’d wait for Plan B. (And it ain’t this.)

Link via Lifehacker.

Faced with the iPad juggernaut and a dual threat from Google (Android Kindle app and the upcoming Web-based bookstore), eReader manufacturers have done the only sensible thing they could do — they’ve lowered the price. Barnes & Noble’s Nook is now $149 for the wifi-only version; Amazon’s Kindle has dropped to $189.

I say make it $99 and we’ll talk.

Even so, we’re gonna pay, one way or another. The price of the reader may come down, but the price of the books will go up. It’s the iPod/iTunes model. And we’re already seeing it.

Btw, Om Malik thinks Amazon’s gonna win the eBook wars. I have to agree.

The best of the best of the best:

• John Gruber focuses on the “retina” display (pun intended):

“[Apple is] using a new production process that effectively fuses the LCD and touchscreen — there is no longer any air between the two … The effect is that the pixels appear to be painted on the surface of the phone; instead of looking at pixels under glass, it like looking at pixels on glass. Combined with the incredibly high pixel density, the overall effect is like ‘live print’.”

• MobileCrunch reminds us that iPhone 4 is more than “the extremely high resolution screen, video chat capability with FaceTime, and the sexy new form factor”, and thus obligingly tells us “Everything you need to know about the iPhone 4“.

• Finally, TechCrunch’s Jason Kincaid, a fellow Android user, throws a little smack at Apple fanboys and girls:

“But despite the fact that my phone doesn’t quite match up to the iPhone 4, at no point yesterday did I consider jumping back onto the iPhone bandwagon. My Nexus One doesn’t feel much slower than the iPhone … What’s more, I’ll be surprised if Android devices don’t surpass the iPhone’s hardware capabilities within the next four months or so. We’ll probably be seeing sharper screens, faster processors, and even integrated gyroscopes (another feature launching with the iPhone 4) on the next wave of devices. And from a software perspective, Android actually seems poised to start beating Apple on some fronts, namely its connection with cloud services … In short, more than ever it looks like Android and Apple are in a dead heat. And that’s a great thing for all of us.”

In the last 5 months I’ve covered the launch of the iPad and iPhone 4. I’m getting tired of Apple’s regularly-planned obsolescence cycles. I feel like I’m suffering from Apple Fetish Fatigue. (Or maybe it’s simply that I’m currently rereading Shop Class as Soulcraft. I’m having trouble with perspective here.)

Business Insider’s Chart of the Day shows us that the Evil Empire’s desktop chokehold is weakening. Their business plan is so 1990s.

… AT&T has done away with all-you-can-eat data for new customers. As of June 7 they will offer new iPhone/iPad users (and people with other smartphones) the choice of either 200MB for $15/month or 2GB for $25/month. An additional 1GB can be procured (I really wanted to write that) for $10/month. If you already have the unlimited data plan, you can keep it even if you upgrade your iPhone.

(Lemee see if I can get away with downgrading my daughter to the 200MB plan …)

Anyway, Wired says “AT&T’s Data Limits Rein In Cloud-Based Media Services“. I have to agree.

The other big thing announced at Google’s I/O conference — other than Google TV, I mean — was Android 2.2, known as Froyo. (That’s short for “frozen yogurt”, btw. All Android releases are given a dessert code name. Don’t ask why.)

Anyway, Froyo will feature USB tethering, support for Flash — take that, Steve Jobs! — and over-the-air updates/streaming for apps and/or music files. Stuff that the iPhone doesn’t yet do, or do particularly well.

Sounds great. But I’ll never see it with the phone I’ve got now. I’m stuck at Donut. I’m hoping I can get to Eclair before December, when my contract is up and I can upgrade my T-Mobile G1. That’s what I get for being an early-adopter.

Two months after Apple filed suit against them, HTC is countersuing Apple for infringing on 5 of its patents. War (Apple vs. Google) by proxy!